The problem of racism might seem an eccentric starting point for rethinking a science
curriculum. It would appear that the problems raised from this vantage point, however
legitimate, would not take long to clear up, at least in principle. The ways in which race
and IQ are discussed in the general culture, and the ways in which they are taught in some
contexts, are obvious examples of potential 'abuses' of science. Taking the argument
further, the concepts of race and IQ are themselves problematic and would disappear in a
different society - one which did not concern itself with human differences in certain
physical attributes or in the ordinal ranking of individuals according to the ability to
think in certain abstract ways.

Even within the existing culture, it can be argued that 'race' has no biological
foundation; it is only, at best, a statistical concept of relatively pure gene pools. No
biologist could draw lines in a large mixed sample so as to demarcate sharply a given race
from another. Research on blood antigens would provide a good way of addressing this
question.

This approach could be contrasted with overtly racist writings by reputable scientists
like C. D. Darlington, a Fellow of the Royal Society and a Professor at Oxford. His
writings celebrate 'racial differences' and are overtly racist; examples are The
Evolution of Man and Society and The Little Universe of Man. Consider
the following quotations from his earlier book (1969):

By inbreeding within classes Irish society was thus genetically fixed and stabilized at
a pre-industrial stage and this has hindered its evolution in step with its neighbours.
Only the disappearance of the barriers between Catholic and Protestant can break this
evolutionary stalemate.

(p. 455)

Thus the slaves were now racially changed. They were now more variable in features and
in colour, in intelligence and in temperament ... The genetic basis of the original
relation of master and slave had disintegrated.

(p. 592)

In short, racial discrimination has a genetic basis with a large instinctive and
irrational component.

(p. 606)

All the great races of man differ in smell; they dislike one another's smell and are
kept apart by it.

(p. 645)

The Nobel Prize winner Konrad Lorenz was also an overt racist during the German Nazi
era, when he wrote:

Nothing is so important for the health of a whole Volk as the elimination of 'invirent
types': those which, in the most dangerous., virulent increase, like the cells of a
malignant tumour, threaten to penetrate the body of a Volk ... Especially today the great
difference depends upon whether or not we can learn to combat decay phenomena, in Volk and
in humanity, which arise from the lack of natural selection. In just this contest for
survival or extinction, we Germans are far ahead of other culture-Volks.

(quoted in Kalikow, 1978)

Another Fellow of the Royal Society, Nobel Prize winner and Oxford Professor, Sir Hans
Krebs, argued that biology 'proved' that trade unionism was against nature. Indeed, he
said, '. . . a continued decrease in working hours is an unrealistic and utopian dream.
The survival of nations, alas, is a matter of ruthless competition with other nations'
(quoted in Young, 1973).

Therefore, we do not need to look at the most obviously biased materials and the work
of disreputable scientists in order to see the intermixture of scientific concepts and
value systems. Indeed, one can find work by reputable anthropologists, economists and
other social scientists which claim that nature 'proves' that right-wing political
theories are true.

The measure of IQ, like that of race, links politics with the typing and ranking of
people for elitist reasons. This has become obvious in the debate around the work of
Arthur Jensen and Sir Cyril Burt, both of whom have recently been exposed by careful
research (Kamin, 1977; Levidow, 1977). This kind of thinking has been linked to wider
issues by the recent books of Martin Barker (The New Racism) and Alan Chase (The
Legacy of Malthus).

The topics of race and IQ help us to move on to a deeper level, one which illuminates
why the task of creating an antiracist science curriculum is far from eccentric but leads
us to the heart of science. As soon as we move off the question of race and IQ as abuses
of science or as bias, we are faced with a more searching question, of which they are
striking examples: where do scientists' questions come from? What leads to the priorities,
agendas, assumptions and fashions of science? Science is not something in the sky, not a
set of eternal truths waiting for discovery. Science is a practice. There is no other
science than the science that gets done. The science that exists is the record of the
questions that it has occurred to scientists to ask, the proposals that get funded, the
paths that get pursued, and the results which lead curiosity to rest and scientific
journals and textbooks to publicize the work.

My view is that the problem of racism in science teaching is a special case of this
deeper issue. The agendas in scientific and technological research reflect the prevailing
values of a given culture. Research and development are the embodiment of values in
theories, therapies and things. A racist society will have a racist science. A different
society could have different science and, indeed, could break down the convenient and
confusing barrier between science and the rest of society. The course of my argument is an
attempt to move from obvious examples to less obvious ones so that we can see the larger
issue.

The questions that get asked

Nature 'answers' only the questions that get asked and pursued long enough to lead to
results that enter the public domain. Whether or not they get asked and how far they get
pursued, are matters for a given society, its education system, its patronage system, and
its funding bodies.

Let us take another example in the general area of 'race'. There is a disease which is
specific to certain peoples, one group of whom come from a certain part of Africa. It
causes episodes of anaemia due to a genetic defect in the red blood cells. They collapse
in a way that makes the cells look like sickles rather the the round, slightly dished-out
shape of functioning red blood cells. The resulting disease is called sickle cell anaemia.
It reduces life expectancy in the people in whom the gene is expressed. The cells are
incapable of transporting oxygen properly; the disease produces various aches, pains and
other forms of debilitation. But how could such a gene prosper? The answer is that sickle
cell anaemia confers a relative selective advantage in evolution because the red blood
cells of its sufferers are immune to infection by the malaria parasite. Therefore, in
areas where malaria is endemic, people with sickle cell anaemia are relatively better
off and have more surviving offspring than people who contract malaria. But when those
offspring were taken as slaves to America, and when a cure for malaria was found, sickle
cell anaemia became, again relatively speaking, a liability.

The 'racial' link is that the disease is specific to particular populations. When
researchers became interested in the disease in the United States, the fashionable
tendency was to apply for grants to look into elitist and fancy topics, for example the
biochemistry of the sickling process (Michaelson, 1971). This was considered more
worthwhile than spending funds for setting up screening and counselling programmes so that
potential sufferers could be advised about marriage and having children. Public health,
screening, genetic counselling and other activities of this kind in black ghettos are a
long way down the pecking order of scientific prestige, and spending time on them is not
likely to enhance a scientist's career. However, when black people began to fight for
their civil rights, they were able to reorientate funding priorities and to get screening
and counselling programmes set up.

Sickle cell anaemia provides a striking example of changing prioritization in research.
The search for drugs for the treatment of leprosy or for a simple male contraceptive are
examples of other priorities which have been slow to come to the top of the pecking order.

A further possibility - genetic engineering - has emerged as a by-product of other
priorities and holds out a long-term hope for a cure for sickle cell anaemia through
genetic transplants. Examples of this kind help to show that the real history of science
is a series of choices for research which depend, in turn, on matters of class, prestige,
gender, and the 'clout' of interest groups. For example, in the same period during which
sickle cell anaemia was being ignored, programmes were developed for screening for breast
cancer and cervical cancer. Research on blood chemistry which might lead to lower
incidence of heart attacks was also well funded. These problems were of great interest to
members of the white middle class. It could be argued that most expensive research gets
done on diseases that a majority of the world's population does not live long enough to
contract. Similarly, many diseases are importantly related to diets which the majority of
the world's population has no chance of consuming.

Priorities in research

From those examples one could move on to a whole series of issues about setting
priorities in medical research. Approaches to disease through public health measures have
been systematically undervalued as compared to approaches which lead to marketable
products. Indeed, one of the most striking examples of this concerns the aggressive
marketing of a product which is of very little use indeed: powdered milk. The naturally
occurring product - mother's breast milk - is more wholesome, contains natural antibodies,
and costs nothing. This is the limiting case of the creation of marketable products in
lieu of other measures. The scandal surrounding the marketing of powdered milk in Third
World countries highlights the absurd consequences of commercial priorities.

An antiracist science curriculumcouldopen out the teaching of scienceto a historical and social approach to knowledge. This perspective would break down
the distinction between the substance and the context of knowledge and examine the social
forces and connections (or articulations) of scientific and technological disciplines and
research problems. Once one begins to think in this way, many things we already know take
on new significance. We also begin to see the blinkering effect of current disciplinary
boundaries in the school and university curricula.

The rise of apparently esoteric disciplines makes sense if considered in terms of the
power relations in a given society and between communities and power blocs. Remove the
conventional barriers and we can see, for example, that the recent dramatic rise in
funding for seismology and oceanography (mapping the ocean floor) takes on new meaning in
the light of the need to monitor nuclear test ban treaties and to find places to hide
nuclear submarines and to find the enemy's. This is not to say that this study of faulting
and plate tectonics is wholly explained by these priorities. It only helps us to
understand why lavish funds are available for this sort of research.

Indeed, over 40 per cent of scientists in Britain and over 50 per cent of research and
development funding comes from the military (Hales, 1982). This is quite often expended on
'pure' science projects which might otherwise not get funded or might not get very much
funding. For example, when I was an undergraduate, a professor of marine biology at Yale,
Professor Talbot Waterman, got a large grant to go to Bermuda every summer to study crabs
who navigated by polarized light in shallow water. This money was given because the United
States Office of Naval Research wanted to be able to design ways of flying over the
earth's poles, where magnetic compasses do not work.

Similar stories can be told about many seemingly unconnected researches:

Studies of rare-earth metals were orientated towards their use in plane fuselages;

The transport revolution of containerization was a technical spin-off from the
development of 'rapid deployment' forces in the United States military;

The development of high-resolution cameras and films was a by-product of spy planes and
satellites;

Non-stick frying pans (the example everyone knows) were a by-product of the heat shields
used on missile nose cones.

Of course, the money for much of this research comes from the profits of multinational
companies which exploit the workers and resources of Third World countries.

It is sometimes hard to grasp the scope of this prioritization process. The whole of
the funding of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacture (CAD/CAM) and
numerical control of machines was derived from American military funding (Noble, 1984).
The United States armed forces have ambitious plans in this area. General Larry Scance,
head of the United States Air Force Manufacturing Command, said the following to a group
of contractors (including Westinghouse, Boeing, General Electric):

Since our war-fighting equipment comes from the industrial base, the condition within
that base must be addressed and corrected. We now have an effort under way to provide a
planning system that will guide our industrial-based investments and will eventually
integrate technology opportunity and business investment planning. It is a top-down
approach we call 'industrial base planning'. We plan to maximize application of
mechanization and automation, and we plan a paper-free factory with planning, scheduling
and control on the latest computer hardware and software techniques. We thus expect the
factory that can perform at least one full shift per day unmanned.

Separate out the jargon and you have a fully computerized factory without any workers
to give you trouble - manufacturing military materials.

The development of cybernetics - the modern science of communication and control - grew
out of wartime research on control systems in gunnery and led on to produce new
perspectives in a variety of sciences - for example, endocrinology, physiology,
psychotherapy, electronics - and connects closely with general systems theory, widely used
in management sciences and town planning. (See Haraway, 1981-2; Heinis, 1980; Lilienfeld,
1978; Wiener, 1956).

Nuclear physics is the most obvious and generously funded example where military
priorities took a relatively esoteric science and made it into a hugely funded research
industry. For example, the vast resources at the European Centre for Nuclear Research
(CERN) are a by-product of military priorities but have led to the discovery of new
fundamental particles by 'pure' scientists.

Computers from the first generation to the fifth are the result of espionage priorities
stemming from World War 2 research to present competition between Japan and the West, with
vast resources coming from industry, military, and government (Jones, 1979).

From this need for rapid computation (coupled with developments in planes and missiles)
we can derive the whole growth of solid state physics, leading to the transistor, the
microprocessor and all the developments extending from pocket calculators and brain
scanners to the integrated defence system known as SIOP (Pringle and Arkin, 1983). Someone
who is doing research in solid state physics on, for example, selenium arsenide might not
be aware of all of the connections of his or her particular PhD project. Indeed, I have a
friend doing research in optics at Imperial College who claims that it is extremely hard
to avoid doing research which is funded by the military or is of interest to the military.
The most abstruse mathematicians have recently found whole areas of their discipline
classified.

Even the most advanced and humane research, the transplanting of hearts and other
organs, depended on developments in immune system suppression which Sir Peter Medawar and
others developed during the treatment of severe military burns during World War 2.

It would be possible to extend this list indefinitely from low-technology matters like
modern nursing in relation to the Crimean War, to group psychology and World War 2 stress
research, to the entire war-related agenda of the largest private research organization in
the world, Bell Labs. From the two-volume history of Bell Labs one can derive an
astonishing list of inventions where military and civilian applications were closely
integrated (Fagen, 1975, 1978). The same can be said of the history of IBM, the giant
which dominates the computer industry.

Commercial agenda-setting

A similar story can be told about commercial prioritization and agenda-setting.
Vitamins are vital coenzymes; small amounts are necessary to avoid well-known deficiency
diseases, for example rickets, pellagra, scurvy. This is a real need at some times and in
certain parts of the world, but the vast sales of vitamins in metropolitan countries bears
no relationship to the real need. This is simply the result of hype. Yet this same drug
industry does not develop cheap vaccines against malaria and other diseases because the
potential purchasers of such products cannot afford them (Medawar, 1986).

Look at the way the commercial potential of biotechnology has created a bonanza in
shares for researchers and genetic engineering and other aspects of the commercial side of
biology. They have been frank about their priorities and have gone for products - human
insulin, growth hormone - which will lead to expensive saleable commodities (Yoxen, 1982).
Indeed, the adding of hormones to animal feeds has already begun to have dire consequences
in Puerto Rico, where children are developing secondary sexual characteristics as a result
of substances fed to the animals which the children eat.

The United States health industry is operating at over two hundred billion dollars per
year. This produces dramatic scientific findings, but their connections should also be
spelled out. Much of this money feeds the drug industry, the insurance industry, the
medical equipment industry, the hospital construction industry. Beyond this, large profits
are derived from the private management of medical facilities and the remuneration of
medical practitioners and researchers. Medicine, like other forms of technology, is big
business.

The whole question of energy can be seen in the same terms. For example, the debate
between various forms of energy derived from the sun - wind, water, heat storage,
photovoltaic - is a function of how the big utility companies are able to control research
agendas. They have managed to forestall some kinds of research and to co-opt others. The
developments which have been done have mimicked the vast power stations that the big
utility companies are accustomed to erecting. This is done at the expense of small-scale
solar units which can operate in a neighbourhood, a block, even a single house or flat.
While this is going on in metropolitan countries, the energy crisis for most of the Third
World is more stark. When will the brushwood and charcoal run out? Women forage further
and further from home daily in order to find wood with which to cook. Failure to cook food
produces disease and debilitation.

Both in the military case and in the setting of commercial priorities, science pursues
certain topics and sets up certain research and development agendas at the expense of
others. An antiracist science curriculum could easily move into the detailed examination
of these matters and their relations with power politics within and between cultures and
power blocs.

Charities: patronage in action

Let us look at another aspect of patronage. It would be interesting to tell the whole
story of the Rockefeller charities. Before the vast national funding agencies were set up
in Britain, Europe and America, the most enlightened and active agent was the Rockefeller
charities. Indeed, these provided the model for national funding agencies. Rockefeller
wealth was derived from a near-monopoly in the oil industry. The charities were set up for
a mixture of altruistic and tax-avoidance reasons. They touch on medicine, public health,
social sciences, molecular biology, animal behaviour, the organization of scientific
research, First-Third World public health and medical teaching. The history of Rockefeller
patronage has been examined by a number of researchers, who have illuminated the following
directions:

The United States medical system orientated its professional students towards the
elimination of alternative medical approaches and the setting up of scientifically-based
medical education, at the expense of a system based on practice and care;

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine set the pattern for health systems
and health practices throughout the Third World;

The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations played a leading part in the use of
psychodynamic ideas in industry;

The Yale Institute of Human Relations created a reorientation of all behavioural and
social sciences so as to play a palliative role in the American human sciences and in
their adoption in other countries;

The whole discipline of molecular biology was virtually created by Rockefeller
patronage, which gave funds for the use of physical models and research techniques, e.g.
the ultra-centrifuge;

The Harvard Business School provided models for management and organization which were
deeply influenced by Rockefeller patronage and draw on organic, non-conflict conceptions
drawn from physiology;

CIMMYT, the Mexican-based Rockefeller research centre which gave us the Green
Revolution, has had the effect of endangering the peasant farmer. This has led to the
worldwide spread of high technology, high fertilizer farming. It is being followed by a
'new green revolution' using the techniques of biotechnology which are derived from other
aspects of Rockefeller patronage;

The monkey colonies in Florida and Puerto Rico provided much of the basis for modern
private research and the models of primate behaviour and family relations which have had a
wide influence on the behavioural sciences;

Finally, the style of research funding which was established by the Rockefeller
Foundation provided the model for public sector research patronage, the Science Research
Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institutes of Health, National Science
Foundation.

An analogous story could be told about the history of museums - the custodial homes of
scientific progress. Research on the forces which have led to the presentation of
knowledge in various museums show how they frame nature and human achievement. There are
studies available about research in this vein on the London Science Museum and the New
York Museum of Natural History (Levidow and Young, 1984; Stocking, 1985). It is important
to understand that the presentation of science to the general public and to schoolchildren
plays an important role in the way we think of 'human progress'.

Philosophy of science

This argument has moved from narrow issues of race and IQ to how agendas are set in
science. The above examples have been an attempt to break down the barrier between science
and society, between pure enquiry and the sources of prioritization and funding. A way of
summarizing the link is to say that a racist society will give you a racist science, in
both obvious and unobvious ways. The 'powers that be' in a society will constrain its
research and development agenda - military powers, economic forces, the social structure
of a society. This is not true only of the funding and of the choice of questions and
research proposals. It is also true of ideas of nature and human nature, as well as the
philosophical assumptions of science itself. It is harder to make this level of the social
constitution of knowledge accessible. One needs to make a big jump.

We are taught to think of science as knowledge of nature pursued by the best method of
discovery and proof - the scientific method, which uses quantitative measures of physical
variables. But this was not always so. There was science before the 'scientific
revolution' in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. There are alternative ways of
thinking about the world - alternative world-views - in different cultures as well as in
our own. If we try to think like anthropologists, we can look at scientists as a tribe and
the assumptions of science as a belief system. There is a literature about some of these
matters which shows how our'tribe' and others construct their world-views or cosmologies
and set up knowledge systems, technologies and cures within that framework (Douglas, 1970,
1973, 1975; Horton, 1967). The institutions and the educational systems which reproduce
them propagate the priorities and values of that tribe.

The curriculum

A sophisticated antiracist science curriculum would compare the thought system of our
own culture with those of others. It would also show the examples where systems of
knowledge have successfully cut across particular cultures - Arabic numbers, acupuncture,
herbal remedies. Similarly, it could look at the Western capitalist approach to science
post-seventeenth-century rationalism - and see the concomitant growth of the scientific
revolution, the Protestant revolution, and the capitalist revolution. There is a good
literature on these matters.

There are both historical and theoretical issues at this fundamental level. For
example, the scientific revolution began the separation of fact and value, matter and
mind, mechanism and purpose. It would be useful to demonstrate the growth of this
mechanical philosophy and compare it to more organismic ways of thinking, then and now.
The relationship between mechanistic and reductionist thinking on the one hand, and
environmentalist and organismic theories on the other, has important philosophical and
political bearings.

It would also be possible to spell out the system which separates facts from their
origins, meanings and the values that inhere in knowledge systems, by looking at
positivism itself. It is positivistic to teach science in the way we do, such that a
science staff in a particular school could make the following reply to a questionnaire on
anti-racist science:

1 The nature of Western science is factual and international in character. While
clearly the product of European/American historical socio-economic processes, it purports
to be culture free, in that it deals with facts and theories elucidated by a process of
logical deduction and reasoning which has its roots in the capacity of the human mind, and
not in culturally determined conditions.

2 The dominant form of science in the world today is 'Western' science. The process of
logical hypothetical deductive reasoning on which it is based is the subject matter of
science education, as is the result of such reasoning expressed in

3 Although many of our pupils originate from divergent cultures, most of them are
first-generation Londoners, and their original cultural backgrounds subscribe to Western
science. There is therefore no case for introducing other forms of science which are
characteristic of particularly minor cultural experiences.

4 The document 'Are we meeting the multi-ethnic needs of the school?' cannot therefore
be replied to by this department, except to state the following:

(a) The science staff are of course aware of the international character of their
subjects. This is stressed when appropriate.

(b) A 'Statement of intent' has been produced by the science department. This is
displayed in the science block and every pupil has the opportunity to see it. The
statement stresses that staff are actively examining materials to eliminate racial, sexual
and religious bias where they are found to occur.

(c) Where the subject matter of science includes a discussion of racial origins and
differences, as it does in biology, the subject is dealt with in a factual manner.

I think that students should be invited to consider this reply. Similarly, they could
be invited to look at Sir Keith Joseph's arguments - as Minister of Education - against
the teaching of 'peace' studies on grounds that it amounted to political indoctrination:

SCHOOLS SHOULD GIVE BALANCED VIEW ON PEACE

AND WAR

Sir Keith deplores attempts at indoctrination

The extent to which explicit attention to the issue of peace and war should have a
place in the classroom should be decided on educational not political grounds, Education
Secretary Sir Keith Joseph said today.

Speaking in London at a one-day conference on peace studies, organized by the National
Council of Women of Great Britain, Sir Keith deplored attempts to trivialize the issue,
cloud it with inappropriate appeals to emotion and present it one-sidedly.

Arguing for a rational approach to the subject, he said local education authorities
should support the professionalism of teachers, who should seek to present to pupils a
balanced and objective picture of the issue.

Sir Keith said peace and war, like other important issues of the day, would crop up
naturally in the curriculum. There was no need to make special space for studies labelled
'peace'.

Teachers' presentation of the issue should be objective in that their selection of fact
gave a balanced picture, fact and opinion was clearly separated and pupils were encouraged
to weigh the evidence and arguments so as to arrive at rational judgements.

If asked by his pupils for his own views the teacher should, as appropriate, declare
where he himself stands but explain at the same time that others, in particular the
pupil's parents and other teachers, may disagree.

(Press Release, 3 March 1984)

The overall model for a science curriculum should be one that always considers all the
following in their mutual interrelations:

origins

assumptions

articulations

who benefits

alternatives

When we begin to think of alternative perspectives, we can look a science as a way of
expressing the values of a given culture. We can also begin to question those who want to
maintain the separation between science and culture. For example, Sir Keith Joseph also
argued that the arts should be eliminated from all polytechnics in Britain. Why? Students
could also be invited to examine the exhibits at various museums. The idea would be to
help them to see what lies behind the way scientific knowledge is presented and to see the
interests which are being served by the separation of science, technology and society.

The problem of an antiracist science curriculum is the problem of changing the terrain
of science teaching. We need to look at deeply held assumptions about what science is, and
what its role in culture is. In particular, there is a series of very basic separations
which have to be challenged in the curriculum and not just as an ornament to teaching
after we have finished presenting the serious part. Some of these separations are:

pure and applied

science and its abuse

science and culture

fact and value

substance and context

body and mind

science and society.

Once teachers and students have become accustomed to thinking about these matters, it
should not be difficult to move on to the deeper level of why we think about nature
in the ways that we do and why we find it so difficult to think about it in different
ways. The more we consider these matters, the more closely integrated we will see
questions of industry and knowledge, of science and culture, so that in the end debates
about the science curriculum can be seen as debates about what kind of society we wish to
have. Do we wish to have one in which people are spoon-fed with facts according to an
agenda set by others, or one in which they have a genuine voice in determining what our
future will consist of?

In order to understand that, it becomes necessary to understand the nature of a
technocracy - a society based on blinkered technique, while the priorities are set in a
way that is kept out of sight. These blinkers are at work in the framing of scientific
education. From this set of topics it should be evident that the question of an antiracist
science is the same as the question of a just society in other areas.

Stocking, Jr, George W. (1985) 'Philanthropoids and vanishing cultures: Rockefeller
funding and the end of Museum era' in Stocking, G. W. (ed.) Objects and Others: essays on museums and material culture, history of anthropology, vol. 3, Madison,
University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 112--45.

Young, Robert M. (1981) The naturalization of value systems in the human sciences' in
problems in the Biological and Human Sciences, Block VI of Open University
Course, Science and Belief from Darwin to Einstein, Milton Keynes, Open
University Press, pp. 63-110.

Terry Allcott has been head of the Centre for Multicultural Education in Leicester
since 1984. He is the author of an INSET Pack on Multicultural Education in the
NationalCurriculum.

Cari A. Bagley is a sociologist and qualified community worker. As an equal
opportunities officer and researcher he has been concerned with the development of
strategies aimed at eliminating racism and racial discrimination.

Kevin J. Brehony is lecturer in education at the University of Reading. He was
co-director, with Rosemary Deem, of the ESRC-funded research project 'The reform of school
governing bodies'.

Celia Burgess-Macey is a primary and early years adviser for the London Borough of
Lambeth. She has written widely on the topic of racism and sexism in primary school
reading materials.

Bruce Carrington is a senior lecturer in education at the University of Newcastle-upon
Tyne. He is currently investigating the effects of cross-age peer tutoring on pupil
performance and attitudes. He is co-author, with Geoffrey Short, of 'Race' and the
Primary School (NFERJNelson, 1989).

Rosemary Deem was senior lecturer in education at the Open University until October
1991, when she left to take up the post of Professor of Educational Research at Lancaster
University. She has published extensively in the fields of gender and education and the
sociology of work and leisure. She was co-director, with Kevin Brehony, of the ESRC-funded
research project 'The reform of school governing bodies'.

Will Guy is part-time lecturer in the Centre for the Study of Minorities and Social
Change at the University of Bristol. He has written widely on travellers and gypsies,
especially in Eastern Europe.

Jan Hardy is county advisor for Multicultural Education in Hertfordshire.

Richard Hatcher is senior lecturer in education studies at Birmingham Polytechnic. He
is co-author, with Barry Troyna, of Racism in Children's Lives (Routledge, 1992).

Sue Hemmings was research assistant to the ESRC-funded project The reform of school
governing bodies'. She is currently part-time lecturer in education at Plymouth
Polytechnic.

Máirtín Mac an Ghaill teaches in the Faculty of Education at the University
Birmingham. His main research interests include the sociology of 'race' and the school of
education; he has a particular interest in Irish studies. He is author of Young, Gifk and Black: student-teacher relations in the schooling of black youth (Open
University Press 1988).

Ian Menter is director of studies for initial teacher education at Bristol Polytechnic.
He has written a number of articles on education policy, antiracism and teacher education.

Herman Ouseley is chief executive for the London Borough of Lambeth. He was previously
principal race relations adviser and head of the Ethnic Minorities Unit at the GLC, and
later Director of Education and Chief Executive for the ILEA. He has also been actively
involved with community work through his local CRE.

Bhihku Parekh is professor of political theory at the University of Hull and was for
sever years deputy chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. He was a member of the
Rampton Committee and, for a short time, of the Swann Committee. He has published widely
in the field of political theory, and is author of Colonialism, Tradition and Reform
(1989).

Kenneth Parker is professor and head of the Graduate Centre in Cultural Studies at the
Polytechnic of East London.

Robin Richardson is director of the Runnymede Trust. He was previously adviser for
multicultural education in Berkshire (1979-85) and chief inspector in the London Borough
of Brent (1985-90). He is author of Daring to be a Teacher (Trentham Books, 1990).

Geoffrey Short is senior lecturer in education at Hatfleld Polytechnic. His current
research interest is in primary and secondary school children's knowledge of Jewish
identity and culture. He is co-author, with Bruce Carrington of 'Race' and the Primary
School (NFER/Nelson, 1989)

Barry Troyna is a senior lecturer in education at the University of Warwick. Amongst
his publications in the field of antiracist education are Racism, Education and the
State (Croom Helm, 1986) which he wrote with Jenny Williams; Racial Inequality in
Education (Tavistock, 1987); and with Bruce Carrington, Education, Racism and Reform
(Routledge, 1990). His latest book Racism in Children's Lives with Richard Hatcher
is published in 1992 by Routledge.

Chris Vieler-Porter is an advisory teacher for multicultural education in
Hertfordshire. His main research interests concern the production of audio-visual images
of'otherness'.

Cecile Wright is lecturer in education at the University of Leicester. She has written
a number of articles on the experiences of ethnic minority students in British schools,
including 'School processes - an ethnographic study', published in Education for Some (Eggleston et al., Trentham Books, 1986).

Robert M. Young is Professor of Psychoanalytic Studies at the University of Kent and
Managing Director of Free Association Books. He is editor of the journal Science as
Culture.